What about making a safety clause that the caller of a CFJ cannot judge
it (all else notwithstanding)?
On 2019-02-18 06:17, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 2:28 PM, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
I purposefully didn’t use any of the powers of the Arbitor for this scam.
Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message it's
initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. Both of
these served to prevent anyone who might have given a fair judgement from
having a chance to intervene. If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was
successful - there seems to be some question about this? - you would also have
needed to use (3) the power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its
resolution for a further week).
I'm not really expecting you to be impeached; like I said in the original
message, I was just throwing out relevant intents to start the 4-day (or 2-day)
timers. The point being that someone else who's been paying more attention than
me to this topic can do whatever they believe necessary to counterscam without
having to delay too long. But saying that the win attempt didn't rely on your
position as Arbitor is just plain false - hence the proposal I submitted, which
neatly prevents this and all related scams. (Though it may need to be adjusted
if temporary deputisation makes it into the ruleset.)
-twg
